Understanding the Tea Party

[jduster]

The Tea Party rather than a uniform group is a gathering of many people of numerous different ideological views.

They all agree on one thing. They feel the domestic policies of the Obama administration are wrong.

Though, there is a division in the Tea Party. Between libertarians and Republicans.

There are libertarians which are atheists/agnostics and there are Republicans who are strongly Christian and strongly anti-Muslim. Many libertarians want complete separation of church and state; Many Republicans don't. Many Republicans feel it is important for the government to enforce laws to strengthen the moral fibers of our society (censorship, anti-drug laws, prostitution laws, etc.) while libertarians believe that government should not protect people from themselves.

Many Tea Party members want a strong national defense and active involvement in foreign policy. Many members are non-interventionists.

Republicans generally support Medicare while many libertarians see no need for it.

Lastly, there is a disagreement of how much to cut the government. The Boehner bill in Congress was not enough for many people in the Tea Party.

Notice that the Tea Party wasn't big when Bush was in power, as there was not enough people in unison for it to achieve a critical mass. Once a Republican gets elected, they divide.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Tea Party rather than a uniform group is a gathering of many people of numerous different ideological views.

They all agree on one thing. They feel the domestic policies of the Obama administration are wrong.

Though, there is a division in the Tea Party. Between libertarians and Republicans.

There are libertarians which are atheists/agnostics and there are Republicans who are strongly Christian and strongly anti-Muslim. Many libertarians want complete separation of church and state; Many Republicans don't. Many Republicans feel it is important for the government to enforce laws to strengthen the moral fibers of our society (censorship, anti-drug laws, prostitution laws, etc.) while libertarians believe that government should not protect people from themselves.

Many Tea Party members want a strong national defense and active involvement in foreign policy. Many members are non-interventionists.

Republicans generally support Medicare while many libertarians see no need for it.

Lastly, there is a disagreement of how much to cut the government. The Boehner bill in Congress was not enough for many people in the Tea Party.

Notice that the Tea Party wasn't big when Bush was in power, as there was not enough people in unison for it to achieve a critical mass. Once a Republican gets elected, they divide.

I think you forgot the most important part - Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing media. It is a movement driven by smoke and mirrors that actually finds its roots in the Nixon administration!

Consider for example Bachmanns claim that we didn't need to raise the debt ceiling. Frankly, the woman is nuts. We were downgraded in part simply for taking too long to raise the debt ceiling. What more proof does one need that this movememnt is essentially driven by nonsense? She absolutely opposes tax increases on the rich but has no problem with giving the entire country a defacto tax increase by ruining our credit and increasing the interest on existing debt. That way, instead of the US government having more more money to deal with our national challenges and reducing our debt, it goes to our overseas investors. In effect, she's working for China.

The birth certificate fiasco would be another example of tea-driven delusions.

They also want to take credit for driving the debt argument. Guess what; I didn't need the tea party to tell me we have too much debt. The only difference is that I seek solutions, not fantasy-driven revolution.

 

[mege]

I think you forgot the most important part - Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing media. It is a movement driven by smoke and mirrors that actually finds its roots in the Nixon administration!

Consider for example Bachmanns claim that we didn't need to raise the debt ceiling. Frankly, the woman is nuts. We were downgraded in part simply for taking too long to raise the debt ceiling. What more proof does one need that this movememnt is essentially driven by nonsense? She absolutely opposes tax increases on the rich but has no problem with giving the entire country a defacto tax increase by ruining our credit and increasing the interest on existing debt. That way, instead of the US government having more more money to deal with our national challenges and reducing our debt, it goes to our overseas investors. In effect, she's working for China.

They also want to take credit for driving the debt argument. Guess what; I didn't need the tea party to tell me we have too much debt. The only difference is that I seek solutions, not fantasy-driven revolution.

In part? Would a 'procedural extention' actually helped us at all?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...entitlement-reform-to-resolve-debt-downgrade/ (watch the video as well, it shows a lot)

Various officials from S&P have been making the news circuit and they're all saying the same thing - political pressures prevented a plausable solution, but then they go on to really indict the excessive mandatory spending (entitlements). They don't say what political pressures are killing the solution, why couldn't it be the democrats refusing to reform the entitlements? (esspecially given S&P official's comments saying that spending is too high) They do say that taxes may be part of the solution, but always focus on the spending.

Fundamentally - the TEA Party is a limited government group. It is a reaction to the neocon faction (think President Bush) of the Republican party which has become increasingly mainstream.

 

[WhoWee]

The birth certificate fiasco would be another example of tea-driven delusions.

Care to support - or just want to retract as an emotional utterance?

 

[Proton Soup]

I think you forgot the most important part - Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing media. It is a movement driven by smoke and mirrors that actually finds its roots in the Nixon administration!

Consider for example Bachmanns claim that we didn't need to raise the debt ceiling. Frankly, the woman is nuts. We were downgraded in part simply for taking too long to raise the debt ceiling. What more proof does one need that this movememnt is essentially driven by nonsense? She absolutely opposes tax increases on the rich but has no problem with giving the entire country a defacto tax increase by ruining our credit and increasing the interest on existing debt. That way, instead of the US government having more more money to deal with our national challenges and reducing our debt, it goes to our overseas investors. In effect, she's working for China.

The birth certificate fiasco would be another example of tea-driven delusions.

They also want to take credit for driving the debt argument. Guess what; I didn't need the tea party to tell me we have too much debt. The only difference is that I seek solutions, not fantasy-driven revolution.

yes, and we have a war machine establishment press led by mainstream media giants like MSNBC/NBC, pushing us to get into debt up to our eyeballs supporting the military industrial complex, bailing out transnational banks, bailing out failed automakers and their pension, and creating new enemies at an alarming rate in the name of fighting "terrorism".

how about you dig some of those peace-loving antiwar liberal democrats from the bottom drawer and dust them off before the republicrats destroy us all?

 

[SixNein]

Notice that the Tea Party wasn't big when Bush was in power, as there was not enough people in unison for it to achieve a critical mass. Once a Republican gets elected, they divide.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks

Given the subject of insurance and politics - would you like to compare the dealings of AARP and their political associations (including perhaps ACORN?) to the contents of your link in a separate thread?

 

[SixNein]

Given the subject of insurance and politics - would you like to compare the dealings of AARP and their political associations (including perhaps ACORN?) to the contents of your link in a separate thread?

I'm just pointing out that the tea party is not as independent as it likes to claim. When one chases the money, one comes back to the GOP.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm just pointing out that the tea party is not as independent as it likes to claim. When one chases the money, one comes back to the GOP.

Your link says "FreedomWorks is a non-profit organization heavily involved with the Tea Party movement". I ask HOW is it involved?

Your report further says "In 2006, the Washington Post revealed that from 2001 - 2006 FreedomWorks engaged in a hidden deal with insurance brokers whereby the brokers would sell high-deductible insurance policies and tax-free medical savings plans to individuals at a group discount, and those who purchased the plans would automatically be added FreedomWorks membership list. "

To this (as an insurance broker) I ask - so what(?) given the policies types are completely legal. To clarify - were the health plans of the "group" variety because of an association membership requirement (possibly a legal/contractual requirement) - it's a common practice? Further, what does any of this (2001 - 2006?) have to do with the TEA Party?

 

[SteveL27]

There is a substantial number of voters who identify as conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. One such label is "small-l" libertarian. That's how I identify. I support the Tea party when they stand for getting the government's fiscal house in order. But they say they want the government out of everyone's personal life, but they support the war on drugs. They say they want a smaller government, but they support the wars and the empire -- as long as it's run on credit.

The left's no better. They say they want social justice, but they continue Bush's wars and start new wars of their own. They say they're for freedom, but they support massive government intervention into the private economy.

So for us small-l libertarians, there's simply nowhere to go. If one is anti-war, pro-balanced budget, and has San Francisco social values, there is NOBODY in American politics that represents us.

 

[SixNein]

Here is you one more link to explore:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity

 

[turbo]

There is a substantial number of voters who identify as conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. One such label is "small-l" libertarian. That's how I identify. I support the Tea party when they stand for getting the government's fiscal house in order. But they say they want the government out of everyone's personal life, but they support the war on drugs. They say they want a smaller government, but they support the wars and the empire -- as long as it's run on credit.

The intellectual disconnect is jarring at times. At rallies drummed up to kill health-care reform, there were signs saying "no socialized medicine" right alongside signs saying "hands off my medicare". Not a lot of continuity of thought there.

 

[WhoWee]

Here is you one more link to explore:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity

It's not hard to understand why anyone would be troubled by Van Jones - did President Obama try to defend his comments in public? Perhaps YOU would like to defend Van Jones now - I'll form a TEA Party group at my desk and nominate myself spokesperson.

My daughter just volunteered to make me a hat.

 

[WhoWee]

The intellectual disconnect is jarring at times. At rallies drummed up to kill health-care reform, there were signs saying "no socialized medicine" right alongside signs saying "hands of my medicare". Not a lot of continuity of thought there.

Sure there is turbo. On one hand the Medicare beneficiary knows their program is in trouble and hopes a solution can be found - probably an increase in payroll tax along with higher co-insurance and deductibles. On the other hand - the Medicare beneficiary doesn't want a new federal program that might jeopardize Medicare further - they don't trust the politicians who've been stealing money (treating it like a slush fund) from their other program (Social Security) for years.

 

[turbo]

So by "stealing" you mean investing the SS surplus in interest-paying Treasuries? I see another disconnect.

 

[WhoWee]

So by "stealing" you mean investing the SS surplus in interest-paying Treasuries? I see another disconnect.

When Social Security was designed - was the intent to loan the funds to a Government that plans to maintain a level of debt equal to GDP? Was the intent to allow politicians to spend the Socail Security funds on anything other than benefits?

As for the US Treasuries held by the Fed and Social Security - WHY - do you think they are as valuable as the ones held by the public?

Especially when you know the Fed just acquired a large amount of them from the banks with freshly printed money under Quantitative Easing. You also know the interest rates have been artificially held near zero. I hope I'm wrong - but I think the Treasuries held by the Fed and the Social Security Trust Fund are - kaput.

 

[Physics-Learner]

from what little i know about the tea party, i have some interest to see how/if it progresses. i like much of what i hear. i have no idea to what degree that mirrors their real intentions.

to respond to the op's post, i like complete separation of church and state. at heart, i tend to be a separationist, or one who likes to mind his own business. so to the extent possible, i want to stay out of foreign affairs.

i want social security to be privatized, but with certain controls as to what the individuals can do with it. the idea is to make sure that people do not become a financial burden on society when they get older.

i probably tend to agree with libertarians as opposed to republicans, from what the op posted. one area where i strongly disagree with them is on abortion - since this is certainly about protecting one life from another life.

 

[Evo]

I hope to retire on social security and medicare, I paid an absolute fortune into them. I want my money back.

 

[Physics-Learner]

good luck on that one - LOL

 

[czelaya]

I think you forgot the most important part - Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing media. It is a movement driven by smoke and mirrors that actually finds its roots in the Nixon administration!

Consider for example Bachmanns claim that we didn't need to raise the debt ceiling. Frankly, the woman is nuts. We were downgraded in part simply for taking too long to raise the debt ceiling. What more proof does one need that this movememnt is essentially driven by nonsense? She absolutely opposes tax increases on the rich but has no problem with giving the entire country a defacto tax increase by ruining our credit and increasing the interest on existing debt. That way, instead of the US government having more more money to deal with our national challenges and reducing our debt, it goes to our overseas investors. In effect, she's working for China.

The birth certificate fiasco would be another example of tea-driven delusions.

They also want to take credit for driving the debt argument. Guess what; I didn't need the tea party to tell me we have too much debt. The only difference is that I seek solutions, not fantasy-driven revolution.

Ivan what makes you think that libertarians want or believe anything Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck propose? Last time I checked, both of those individuals believe & stand behind anti-Muslim mentality, support Neo-Con views, support programs like The Patriot Act (which president Obama promised to distinguish), and so forth. Most importantly, we didn't support presidents Bush's decisions during his tenure.

Bachmann? Really? What's next Palin?

That's funny because none of my friends ever had issues that with the birth certificate issue. I never once saw libertarian institutes like CATO ever put forth such nonsense either. This is beginning to sound like the basic montage from liberal news outlets.

Please give me a link from a non liberal source that states otherwise. All you state are constant tirades that libertarians are far right Republicans(which we are not) and are terrorist.

By the way, libertarians don't support Democratic or Republican views. Our political spectrum is not 1-dimensional.

 

[falc39]

The first time I heard of "Tea Party" being used was in Ron Paul's Tea Party Fundraiser held in 2007, in December on the Boston Tea Party anniversary. He raised an enormous amount that day. His supporters picked that day for the fundraiser. Some of his supporters even dressed in colonial clothing and dumped fake tea in some lake or something. You might be able to find that video on youtube still. I donated in that money bomb fundraiser, it was huge... Ron Paul was the only one in the Republican debates talking about cutting the deficit, returning to strict constitutional viewpoints, and limiting the scope and size of government. This was back when it wasn't fully accepted we were heading into a recession and back when most republicans didn't care about deficits either and were running it up to fund the wars.

Since then, the term has stuck and you begin to see it more and more. It's symbolic in the sense that the people under it don't approve what was going on. This was true of both parties, we were upset when Bush was running the country and we did not see any legitimate candidates among those who had a lot of support in both parties.

The democrats ended up taking the election and all the defeated republicans co-opted the whole movement. Once big money was pushed into it by these republicans, it started turning into the whole movement of today. But the core of it and the beginning really came out of the Ron Paul movement which is why people refer to him as the godfather of the tea party and why it is still very libertarian. It was his ideas of limited government and balanced budgets that people really could get behind and it remains the core principle in my opinion. It's kind of amazing how one guy can influence policy so much when you think about it. Hope this posts gives a little insight :)

 

[OmCheeto]

It's not hard to understand why anyone would be troubled by Van Jones - did President Obama try to defend his comments in public? Perhaps YOU would like to defend Van Jones now - I'll form a TEA Party group at my desk and nominate myself spokesperson.

My daughter just volunteered to make me a hat.

Make sure it's aluminum!

In late July[2008], a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961
...

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/"

ps. Thank you for questioning Ivan's birther remark. The last three hours have been incredibly entertaining. I also found someone who I think would make a great Tea Party leader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz"
I kept having to double check the URL on her wiki entry, as looks like it was written by The Onion.

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, we certainly need to do something to start reversing the stranglehold that the wealthy have on the population.

 

[WhoWee]

I hope to retire on social security and medicare, I paid an absolute fortune into them. I want my money back.

I touched on these in the (Ivan wants) higher taxes thread - Medicare Part A is in trouble. We need to increase the payroll deduction and both co-insurance and deductibles will need to increase (again). The Medicare advantage plans (if kept in place) could be tweaked to help solve the problem - but the premiums will need to increase drastically - from $0 to $50 to $200 to $400 (my best guess).

Social Security also needs adjustment - there won't be any excess funds to spend on other programs in the near future. If they raise the cap (and benefit levels accordingly - it's taxable above $32,000) and the age of eligibility - and stop expanding the scope of eligibility - they can protect the system.

 

[WhoWee]

well, we certainly need to do something to start reversing the stranglehold that the wealthy have on the population.

What does the word "entitlement" mean to you? Does it mean - because you've worked your entire life and contributed to Medicare and Social Security (or you've been injured and can't work) you are entitled to retire with confidence and security? Or perhaps it means that people who are not rich and can't find the jobs they want (regardless of education or skill set) are entitled to be provided for by the Government (at the expense of the wealthy)? If there are additional definitions please clarify.

 

[Physics-Learner]

that seems like a strange reply to my post ?

 

[WhoWee]

that seems like a strange reply to my post ?

Allow me to clarify. I believe the (ever-increasing) welfare programs have a stranglehold on our economy.

 

[Proton Soup]

Allow me to clarify. I believe the (ever-increasing) welfare programs have a stranglehold on our economy.

came across this today. it's from a couple of years ago, but the interesting thing is how subsidized housing is not treated as income, leading to an additional food subsidy. i always thought the issue was pay-related, but it seems some have been gaming the system.

http://www.military.com/news/article/more-troops-relying-on-food-stamps.html

 

[Physics-Learner]

Allow me to clarify. I believe the (ever-increasing) welfare programs have a stranglehold on our economy.

gosh, no argument there.

 

[WhoWee]

came across this today. it's from a couple of years ago, but the interesting thing is how subsidized housing is not treated as income, leading to an additional food subsidy. i always thought the issue was pay-related, but it seems some have been gaming the system.

http://www.military.com/news/article/more-troops-relying-on-food-stamps.html

I'm fully in favor of making sure the military is cared for - my concern is the private sector programs. I don't know why the Government doesn't act like the largest consumer of food in the world AND NEGOTIATE FOR A DISCOUNT on the main items? Instead of allowing unrestricted retail purchases (of high mark-up items) - why not pay wholesale rates via development of a generic line - buy direct and pay a reasonable distribution fee to select retailers.

 

[daveb]

came across this today. it's from a couple of years ago, but the interesting thing is how subsidized housing is not treated as income, leading to an additional food subsidy. i always thought the issue was pay-related, but it seems some have been gaming the system.

http://www.military.com/news/article/more-troops-relying-on-food-stamps.html

While I absolutely believe we should help out our men and women in uniform, as well as their immediate families, I have to wonder what is it about those living on base (as the article says) that makes them need food stamps? Their housing and medical are 100% covered, so where is all their pay going?

 

[daveb]

I'm fully in favor of making sure the military is cared for - my concern is the private sector programs. I don't know why the Government doesn't act like the largest consumer of food in the world AND NEGOTIATE FOR A DISCOUNT on the main items? Instead of allowing unrestricted retail purchases (of high mark-up items) - why not pay wholesale rates via development of a generic line - buy direct and pay a reasonable distribution fee to select retailers.

GREAT GOOGILY MOOGILY!

Has no one before thought of this? This is a fantastic idea! Sounds like you might just want to start a new business there.

 

[WhoWee]

GREAT GOOGILY MOOGILY!

Has no one before thought of this? This is a fantastic idea! Sounds like you might just want to start a new business there.

The Agriculture Department has over 105,000 employees (according to this link). I'm pretty sure they could spare a dozen of them to work on a plan.
http://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/ratio-of-farmers-to-department-of-agriculture-employees/

"Using 105,000 total USDA employees and the BLS figure of 1.2 million farmers and farm workers — you get a ratio of 1 employee for every 11.4 farmers."

 

[BobG]

came across this today. it's from a couple of years ago, but the interesting thing is how subsidized housing is not treated as income, leading to an additional food subsidy. i always thought the issue was pay-related, but it seems some have been gaming the system.

http://www.military.com/news/article/more-troops-relying-on-food-stamps.html

I'm not quite sure I'd call it gaming the system. Either they're eligible by program rules or they're not. The glitch is with the Food Stamp's rules for eligibility.

None the less, it's been a slightly controversial issue for decades. Military personnel that live off base receive a non-taxable allotment that should cover about 85% of the cost of paying rent/paying a mortgage (it's a standardized amount, so the allotment covers more for some and less for others). Toss in gas, electric, trash pick-up, sewer and wastewater fees and people living off base have a harder time getting by than people living on base (those utilities are free on base). Yet it's the people living on base that are eligible for food stamps; not the people living off base.

That said, there still aren't many bases where the most likely to be eligible for food stamps (enlisted members) would choose base housing over off base housing. While they've been improving housing, most base housing is still pretty depressing. Unless you're lucky enough to be stationed at one of the exceptions. There's a few bases where base housing is very nice.

 

[skippy1729]

I think you forgot the most important part - Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing media. It is a movement driven by smoke and mirrors that actually finds its roots in the Nixon administration!

The Nixon administration as the roots of the Tea Party? What a cheap shot!

Nixon was no conservative. Remember Wage and Price controls. Made friends with the Red Chinese; how is that working out for us?

An obsession with "enemies".

An arrogant White Houise.

A thug as chief of staff.

A buffoon as vice-president.

Continuation and expansion of his predecessors war policies.

Trashing the dollar.

The secretary of state as the only adult in the room.

An ultra-partisan attorney general.

A historically large re-election warchest.

Who am I talking about Nixon or Obama?

Will there be ANY surprise if the WH adopts Nixonian tactics in the upcoming re-election? Will there be any journalists left to report it if they do?

Cheers, Skippy